Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>>>There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search
didn't
>>>find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the
>>>library carries the base name. Older libraries carry the version in the
name.
>>Interesting ... it seems time is changing. I made several attempts to
>>make this unwritten rule to be written, the last wrap up and my
>>latest proposal can be found here:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-October/008740.html
>>
>Your proposals keep failing because they run contrary to the unwritten
>rules rather than canonifying them.
May be I missing something, but what is different in
>Always consider to let a nonversioned package to follow an upstream
>release versions. The other versions of package kept in Fedora for
>compatibility reasons should be either prefixed by compat- prefix or
>their name should be suffixed by version string.
contrary to
> the current version of the library carries the base name. Older
libraries carry the version in the name.